Leaked document reveals Intel 'Haswell' chips potentially bound for 2013 iMacs
Details on 14 new desktop processors set to launch in 2013 based on Intel's "Haswell" architecture have leaked, offering a glimpse at chips that could potentially make their way into the next-generation iMac.
All but one of the Core i5 and Core i7 chips are quad-core, with as many as 8 threads, as revealed in a document VR-Zone this week (via Neowin.net). In addition to faster speeds, the new chips will also include Intel's next-generation HD 4600 integrated graphics processor.
On the high-end, the Core i7-4770K processor will run at a base frequency of 3.5 gigahertz with 8 megabytes of total cache. With Intel Turbo Boost Technology, it will max out at 3.9 gigahertz.
The 2013 Haswell lineup includes a total of six "standard power" desktop processors, with two of them being more powerful Core i7 models. Also listed are eight "low power" processors that include three Core i7 variations.
The most powerful among the low power processors is the Core i7-4770S, which will have a base frequency of 3.1 gigahertz, but can run at up to 3.9 gigahertz with Turbo Boost. The slowest processor of the bunch is the Core i5-4430S, which will run at 2.7 gigahertz base frequency with 6 megabytes of total cache, 4 cores and 4 threads.
The listed Haswell desktop processors are most likely to make their way into Apple's all-in-one iMac lineup, which are the only Macs to use desktop processors. The Mac Pro, which is due to receive a significant update in 2013, uses Intel's Xeon server chips, while the Mac mini currently relies on low-power mobile processors.
No release date has been given for the new Haswell chips, but it's unlikely that they will appear in new Macs anytime soon, as the iMac lineup was just given a major refresh with a new design and Intel's latest Ivy Bridge processors.
All but one of the Core i5 and Core i7 chips are quad-core, with as many as 8 threads, as revealed in a document VR-Zone this week (via Neowin.net). In addition to faster speeds, the new chips will also include Intel's next-generation HD 4600 integrated graphics processor.
On the high-end, the Core i7-4770K processor will run at a base frequency of 3.5 gigahertz with 8 megabytes of total cache. With Intel Turbo Boost Technology, it will max out at 3.9 gigahertz.
The 2013 Haswell lineup includes a total of six "standard power" desktop processors, with two of them being more powerful Core i7 models. Also listed are eight "low power" processors that include three Core i7 variations.
The most powerful among the low power processors is the Core i7-4770S, which will have a base frequency of 3.1 gigahertz, but can run at up to 3.9 gigahertz with Turbo Boost. The slowest processor of the bunch is the Core i5-4430S, which will run at 2.7 gigahertz base frequency with 6 megabytes of total cache, 4 cores and 4 threads.
The listed Haswell desktop processors are most likely to make their way into Apple's all-in-one iMac lineup, which are the only Macs to use desktop processors. The Mac Pro, which is due to receive a significant update in 2013, uses Intel's Xeon server chips, while the Mac mini currently relies on low-power mobile processors.
No release date has been given for the new Haswell chips, but it's unlikely that they will appear in new Macs anytime soon, as the iMac lineup was just given a major refresh with a new design and Intel's latest Ivy Bridge processors.
Comments
1. That's no revolution; it's evolution
2. Will I be able to install RAM myself?
3. What? No Xeon?
4. Damn, I just bought a new iMac!
5. What's up with the [I]down[/I]clocking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Hateful comments might be:
1. That's no revolution; it's evolution
2. Will I be able to install RAM myself?
3. What? No Xeon?
4. Damn, I just bought a new iMac!
5. What's up with the downclocking?
I dunno, I'd of thought more "Coming Mid 2014 to match the same seriously late cycle as last revision"
…potentially…
Originally Posted by BoxMacCary
Hello new Haswell-powered MacBook Air!
Hello, 12 hours of battery life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Hello, 12 hours of battery life.
Because of Haswell? Are you insane? Haswell is a complete joke of an upgrade, just like Ivy bridge was. This small processor bump is nothing for an upgrade, so i believe it's time for Apple to focus on other things, like the display (is there anything else? The air is already close to perfection) or battery engineering. IPS display with higher resolution would fit perfectly.
Apple should do something about it, intel needs competition... C'mon AMD! Do something decent!
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Because of Haswell? Are you insane?
From an Intel representative:
Originally Posted by Some Guy At Intel
We are going to nearly double the battery life
Backlink image goes to the article.
This small processor bump…
…has nothing to do with battery life.
Apple should do something about it, intel needs competition...
Why? I mean yeah, but why should they make faster chips when… they can't? I'd rather they focus on quantum machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
From an Intel representative:
Backlink image goes to the article.
…has nothing to do with battery life.
Why? I mean yeah, but why should they make faster chips when… they can't? I'd rather they focus on quantum machines.
I don't have the exact numbers, but even if haswell is 2x more efficient than Ivy (i don't believe it), it won't almost double battery life, far from it.
wireless, bluetooth, screen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Hateful comments might be:
1. That's no revolution; it's evolution
2. Will I be able to install RAM myself?
3. What? No Xeon?
4. Damn, I just bought a new iMac!
5. What's up with the downclocking?
Why are these hateful comments? They are not comments (or thoughts) that would pre-occupy me one way or the other. But why must you draw a line between Apple lovers and haters? Why not just ignore comments that you don't find meaningful, instead of defensively inciting irrational debates which are as frequent here as rational ones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Because of Haswell? Are you insane? Haswell is a complete joke of an upgrade, just like Ivy bridge was. This small processor bump is nothing for an upgrade, so i believe it's time for Apple to focus on other things, like the display (is there anything else? The air is already close to perfection) or battery engineering. IPS display with higher resolution would fit perfectly.
Apple should do something about it, intel needs competition... C'mon AMD! Do something decent!
I am ok with a small processor bump. After all, can we really expect major changes every single year, or even every two years? Having said that, competition for Intel is not a bad thing.
Battery engineering ... I am quite happy with the MBA's battery performance but would love to see improvement on the rMBP.
The big question is - will RP come to the MBA? If so, what distinguishes rMBA and rMBP?
Originally Posted by pedromartins
I don't have the exact numbers, but even if haswell is 2x more efficient than Ivy (i don't believe it), it won't almost double battery life, far from it.
Did you read the link? It's 20x more efficient.
You're right, that was a stupid post; I get what you mean - thanks.
The only thing that worries me is the mention of the HD4600. Please, Apple, stop using Intel GPUs. Yes, no matter how "good" they're. Please stop it. Only decent GPUs from today on, please.
The other thing I wonder is why the graphics are called 4600 and not 5000?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
The only thing that worries me is the mention of the HD4600. Please, Apple, stop using Intel GPUs. Yes, no matter how "good" they're. Please stop it. Only decent GPUs from today on, please.
And they are decent. There's no alternative here.
Originally Posted by ecs
The only thing that worries me is the mention of the HD4600. Please, Apple, stop using Intel GPUs. Yes, no matter how "good" they're. Please stop it. Only decent GPUs from today on, please.
First, they can't stop using them unless they stop using Intel chips entirely. Second, they've changed names, yeah? It's GT1, 2, and 3 from now on.
And you're apparently against the name itself and not the quality of the chip, since you've stated that you don't want Apple to use them even if they were more powerful than the best dedicated hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
You're right, that was a stupid post; I get what you mean - thanks.
Cool.
Has anyone seen a (rigorous) analysis of whether we are still (truly) following Moore's Law?
... potentially ... (Until quad-core 64-bit ARMv8 is ready.)
Who decides that?
For my purposes, the Intel graphics are more than fast enough. I don't see any benefit to going to discrete graphics for what I do. So why insist on the money, space taken up, and (more importantly for MBAs) battery power consumption of discrete graphics when not everyone needs them?
You have the option of buying the MBP or iMac or Mac Pro. There's no reason why Apple should be forced to include dedicated graphics in EVERY computer because some people demand it.